h 11 -^^y'H IVaturalIaw ^ ^ORLD IMTHB k r ^ " BW^^ ^. f . /'-'/ <^ PRINCETON, N. J. *jf Presented by ~Sayr\ey G . rn (SU^r'^ Cx /< BL 240 .D8 1887 \ Drummond, Henry, 1851-1897.1 Natural law in the spiritual world .'UN 9 1914 NATURAL LAW IN THE SPIRITUAL WORLD. B^ HENRY DRUMMOND, F. R. S. E. ; iT.Q.ii. NEW YORK JOHN B. ALDEN, PUBLISHER 1887 -ARGYLE PRESS, Printing and Bookbindinq, 24 a 26 wooster st., n. y. CONTENTS Preface, Introduction, Biogenesis, Degeneration, Growth, Death, Mortification, Eternal Life, Environment, Conformity to Type, Semi-Parasitism, Parasitism, Classification. 5 21 59 83 99 111 133 149 181 203 233 237 255 PREFACE. No class of works is received with more si;s- picion, I had ahiiost said derision, than those which deal with Science and Religion. Science is tired of reconciliations between two things which never should have been contrasted; Religion is offended by the patronage of an ally which it j^ro- f esses not to need; and the critics have rightly discovered that, in most cases where Science is either j^itted against Religion or fused with it, there is some fatal misconception to begin with as to the scope and province of either. But although no initial protest, j^robably, will save this work from the unhappy reputation of its class, the thoughtful mind will perceive that the fact of its subject-matter being Law — a property peculiar neither to Science nor to Religion — at once places it on a somewhat different footing. The real problem I have set myself may be stated in a sentence. Is there not reason to be- lieve that many of t!ie Laws of the Spiritual World, hitherto regarded as occupying an entirely separate province, are simply the Laws of the Natural World? Can we identify the Natural Laws, or any one of them, in the Spiritual sphere? That vague lines everywhere run through ^the Spiritual World is already beginning to be recognized. Is it possible to link them with those great lines run- ning through the visible universe which we call the Natural Laws, or are they fundamentally dis- tinct? In a word. Is the Supernatural natural or unnatural ? I may, perhaps, be allowed to answer these ques- tions in the form in which they have answered themselves to myself. And I must apologize at [5] 8 PEEFACE. doubt, the reluctant abandonment of early faith by those who would cherish it longer if they covud, is it not plain that the one thing thinking nieu are waiting for is the introduction of Law among the Phenomena of the Spiritual World? When that comes we shall offer to such men a truly sci- entific theology. And the Eeign of Law will transform the whole Spiritual World as it has already transformed the Natural World. I confess that even when in the first dim vision , the organizing hand of Law moved among the un ordered truths of my Spiritual World, poor aiui scantily-furnished as it was, there seemed to come over it the beauty of a transfiguration. The change was as great as from the old chaotic world of Pythagoras to the symmetrical and harmonious universe of Newton. My Spiritual World before was a chaos of facts; my Theology, a Pythagorean system trying to make the best of Phenomena apart from the idea of Law. I make no charge against Theology in general. I speak of my own. And I say that I saw it to be in many essential respects centuries behind every department of Science I knew. It was the one region still unpossessed by Law. I saw then why men of Science distrust Theology; why those who have learned to look upon Law as Authority grow cold to it — it was the Great Exception. I have alluded to the genesis of the idea in my own mind partly for another reason — to show its naturalness. Certainly I never premeditated any- thing to myself so objectionable and so unwarrant- able in itself, as either to read Theology into Science or Science into Tlieology. Nothing could be more artificial than to attempt this on the speculative side; and it has been a substantial rtlief to me throughout that the idea rose up thus in the course of practical work and shaped itself day by day unconsciously. It might be charged, aevertheless, that I was all the time, whether consciously or unconsciously, simply reading my Theology into my Science. And as this would hopelessly vitiate the conclusions arrived at, I PREFACE. 9 must acquit myself at least of the intention. Of nothing have I been more fearful throughout than of making Nature ^mrallel with my own or with any creed. The only legitimate questions one dare put to Xature are those which concern universal human good and the Divine interpreta- tion of things. These I conceive may be there actually studied at first-hand, and before their purity is soiled by human touch. We have Truth in Nature as it came from God. And it has to be read with the same unbiased mind, the same open eye, the same faith, and the same reverence as all other Revelation. All that is found there, whatever its place in Theology, whatever its orthodoxy or heterodoxy, whatever its narrowness or its breadth, we are bound to accept as Doctrine from which on the lines of Science there is no escape. When this presented itself to me as a method, I felt it to be due to it — were it only to secure, so far as that was j^ossible, that no former bias should interfere with the integrity of the results — to begin again at the beginning and reconstruct my Spiritual World step by step. The result of that inquiry, so far as its expression in systematic form is concerned, I have not given in this book. To reconstruct a Spiritual Religion, or a depart- ment of Spiritual Religion — for this is all the method can pretend to — on the lines of Nature would be an attempt from which one better equip- ped in both directions might well be pardoned if he shrank. My object at present is the humbler one of venturing a simple contribution to practical Religion along the lines indicated. What Bacon predicates of the Natural World, Nntura enim non nisi 2J(irendo vincitur, is also true, as Christ had already told us, of the Spir' tual World. And I present a few samples of the religious teaching referred to formerly as having been prepared under the influence of scientific ideas in the hope that they may be useful first of all in this direc- tion. I would, however, carefully point out that 10 PREFACE. though their unsystematic arrangement here may create the impression that these papers are merely isohited readings in Keligion pointed by casual scientific truths, they are organically connected by a single principle. Nothing could be more false both to Science and to Eeligion than attempts to adjust the two spheres by making out ingenious points of contact in detail. The solution of this great question of conciliation, if one may still refer to a problem so gratuitous, must be generid rather than particular. The basis in a common principle — the Continuity of Law — can alone save specific applications from ranking as mere coinci- dences, or exempt them from the reproach of being a hybrid between two things which must be related by the deepest affinities or remain for- ever separate. To the objection that even a basis in Law is no warrant for so great a trespass as the intrusion into another field of thought of the principles of Natural Science, I would reply that in this I find I am following a lead which in other departments has not only been allowed but has achieved results as rich as they were unexpected. What is the Physical Politic of Mr. Walter Bagehot but the extension of Natural Law to the Political World? What is the Biological Sociology of Mr. Herbert Spencer but the application of Natural Law to the Social World? Will it be charged that the splendid achievements of such thinkers are hybrids between things which Nature has meant to remain apart? Nature usually solves _ such problems for herself. Inappropriate hybridism is checked by the Law of Sterility. Judged by this great Law these modern developments of our knowledge stand uncondemned. Within their own sphere the results of Mr. Herbert Spencer are far from sterile — the application of Biology to Political Economy is already revolutionizing the Science. If the introduction of Natural Law into the Social sphere is no violent contradiction but a genuine and permanent contribution, shall its further extension to the Spiritual sphere be PREFACE. 1 1 counted an extravagance? Does not the Principle of Continuity demand its application in every direction? To carry it as a working principle into so lofty a region may appear impracticable. Difficulties lie on the threshold which may seem, it first sight, insurmountable. But obstacles to a true method only test its validity. And he who honestly faces the task may find relief in feeling that whatever else of crudeness and imperfection mar it, the attempt 's at least in harmony with i\e thought and movement of his time. That these papers were not designed to appear in a collective form, or indeed to court the more public light at all, needs no disclosure. They are published out of regard to the wish of known and unkno n friends by whom, when in a fugitive form, they were received with so curious an inter- est as to make one feel already that there are minds which such forms of truth may touch. In making the present selection, partly from nianu- script, and partly from articles already published, I have been guided less by the wish to constitute the papers a connected series tjian to exhibit the application of the principle in various directions. They will be found, therefore, of unequal interest and value, according to the standpoint from which they are regarded. Thus some are designed with a directly practical and popular bearing, others being more expository, and slightly apologetic in tone. The risk of combining two objects so very different is somewhat serious. But, for the reason named, having taken this responsibility, the only compensation I can offer is to indicate which of the papers incline to the one side or to the other. '"Degeneration," "Growth," 'Mortification," "Conformity to T3^pe," "Semi-Parasitism," and "Parasitism" belong to the more practical order; and while one or two are intermediate, "Bio- genesis," "Death," and "Eternal Life"- may be offered to those who find the atmosphere of the former uncongenial. It will not disguise itself, however, that, owing to the circumstances Iti which they were prepared, all the papers are more 12 PREFACE. or less practical in their aim; so that to the merely philosophical reader there is little to he offered except — and that only with the greatest diffidence — the Introductory chapter. In the Introduction, which the general reader may do well to ignore, I have briefly stated the case for Natural Law in the Spiritual World. The extension of Analogy to Laws, or rather the extension of the Laws themselves so far as known to me, is new; and I cannot hope to have escaped the mistakes and misadventures of a first exploi'a- tion in an unsurveyed land. So general has been the survey that I have not even paused to define specially to what departments of the Spiritual World exclusively the princij^le is to be applied. The danger of making a new principle apply too widely inculcates here the utmost caution. One thing is certain, and I state it pointedly, the application of Natural Law to the Spiritual World has decided and necessary limits. And if else- where with undue enthusiasm I seem to magnify the principle at stake, the exaggeration — like the extreme amplification of the moon's disc when near the horizon — must be charged to that almost necessary aberration of light which distorts every new idea while it is yet slowly climbing to its zenith. In what follows the Introduction, except in the setting there is nothing new. I trust there is nothing new. When I began to follow out these lines, I had no idea where they would lead me. I was prepared, nevertheless, at least for the time, to be loyal to the method throughout, and share with nature whatever consequences might ensue. But in almost every case, after stating what ap- peared to be the truth in words gathered directly from the lips of Nature, I was sooner or later startled by a certain similarity in the general idea to something I had heard before, and this often developed in a moment, and when I was least expecting it, into recognition of some familiar article of faith. I was not watching for this result. I did not begin by tabulating the doc- PREFACE. 13 trines, as I did the I.aws of Nature, and then proceed with the attempt to pair them. The majority of them seemed at first too far removed froin the natural world even to suggest this. Still less did I begin with doctrines and work down- ward to find their relations in the natural sphere. It was the opj)Osite process entirely. I ran up the Natural Law as far as it would go, and the appropriate doctrine seldom even loomed in sight till I had reached the top. Then it burst into view in a single moment. I can scarcely now say whether in those moments I was more overcome Avith thankfulness that Nature was so like Revelation, or more filled wi'Ai wonder that Revelation was so like Nature. Nature, it is true, is a part of Revelation — a much greater part doubtless than is yet believed — and one could have anticipated nothing but harmony here. But that a derived Theology, in spite of the venerable verbiage which has gathered round it, should be at bottom and in all cardinal respects so faithful a transcript of "the truth as it is in Nature" came as a surprise and to me at least as a rebuke. How, under the rigid necessity of incorporating in its system much that seemed nearly unintelligible, and much that was barely credible. Theology has succeeded so perfectly in adhering through good report and ill to what in the main are truly the lines of Nature, awakens : new admiration for those who constructed and kept this faith. But however nobly it has held its ground, Theology must feel to-day that the modern world calls for a further proof. Nor will the best Theology resent this demand; it also demands it. Theology is searching on every hand for another echo of the Voice of which Revelation also is the echo, that out of the mouths of two witnesses its truths should be established. _ That other echo can only come from Nature, Hitherto its voice has been muffled. But now that Science has made the world around articulate, it speaks to Religion with a twofold purpose. In the first 14 PREFACE. place it offers to corroborate Theology, in the second to purify it. If the removal of suspicion from Theology is of urgent moment, not less important is the removal of its adulterations. These suspicions, many of them at least, are new; in a sense they mark progress. But the adulterations are the artificial accumulations of centuries of uncontrolled specu- lation. They are the necessary result of the old method and the warrant for its revision — they mark the impossibility of progress without the guiding and restraining hand of Law. The felt exhaustion of the former method, the want of corroboration for the old evidence, the protest of reason against the monstrous overgrowths which conceal the real lines of truth, these summon us to the search for a surer and more scientific system. With truths of the theological order, with dogmas which often depend for their exist-- ence on a particular exegesis, with propositions which rest for their evidence upon a balance of probabilities, or upon the weight of authority; with doctrines which every age and nation may make or unmake, which each sect may tamper with, and which even the individual may modify for himself, a second court of appeal has become un imperative necessity. Science, therefore, may yet have to be called npon to arbitrate at some points between conflict- ing creeds. And while there are some depart- ments of Theology where its jurisdiction cannot be sought, there are others in which Nature may yet have to define the contents as well as the limits of belief. What I would desire especially is a thouglitful consideration of the method. The applications ventured upon here may be successful or unsuc- cessful. But they would more than satisfy me if they suggested a method to others whose less clumsy hands might work it out more profitably. For I am convinced of the fertility of such 'a method at the present time. It is recognized by all that the younger and abler minds of this age PKEFACE. 15 6nd the most serious difficulty in accepting or retaining the ordinary forms or belief. Especially is this true of those whose culture is scientific. And the reason is paljoable. No man can study modern Science without a change coming over his view of truth. What impresses him about Nature is its solidity. He is there standing upon actual things, among fixed laws. And the in- tegrity of the scientific method so seizes him that all other forms of truth l)egins to appear compar- jitively unstable. He did not know before thai any form of truth could so hold him; and the immediate effect is to lessen his interest in all that stands on other bases. This he feels in spite of himself; he struggles against it in vain; and lie finds perhaps to his alarm that he is drifting fast into what looks at first like pure Positivism. This is an inevitable result of the scientific train- ing. It is quite erroneous to suppose that science ever ovei'tlirows Faith, if by that is implied that any natural truth can oppose successfully any single sjDiritual truth. Science cannot overthrow Faith; but it shakes it. Its own doctrines, grounded in Nature, are so certain, that the truths of Eeligion, resting to most men on Authority, are felt to be strangely insecure. The difficulty, therefore, which men of Science feel about Eelig- ion is real and inevitable, and in so far as Doubt is a conscientious tribute to the inviolability of Nature it is entitled to resi^ect. None but those who have passed through it can appreciate the radical nature of the change wrought by Science in the whole mental attitude cf its disciples. AVhat they really cry out for in Religion is a new standpoint — a standpoint like their own. The one hope, therefore, for Science is more vScience. Agaiu, to quote Bacon — we shall heai enough from_ the moderns by-and-by — "This I dare affirm in knowledge of Nature, that a little natural philosophy, and the first entrance into it, doth dispose the opinion to atheism; but, on the other side, much natural philosophy, and 16 PREFACE. wading deep into it, will bring about men's minda to religion."* The application of similia similihus curantnr was never more in point. If this is a disease, it is the disease of Nature, and the cure is more Nature. For what is this disquiet in the breasts of men but the loyal fear that Nature is being violated? Men must oppose with every energy they possess what seems to them to oppose the eternal course of things. And the first step in their deliverance must be not to "reconcile" Nature and Religion, but to exhibit Nature in Religion. Even to convince them that there is no controversy between Religion and Science is in- sufficient. A mere flag of truce, in the nature of the case, is here impossible; at least, it is only possible so long as neither party is sincere. No man who knows the splendor of scientific achieve, ment or cares for it, no man who feels the solidity of its method or works with it, can remain neutral with regard to Religion. He must either extend his method into it, or, if that is imjiossible, oppose it to the knife. On the other hand, no one who knows the content of Christianity, or feels the universal need of a Religion, can stand idly by while the intellect of his age is slowly divorcing itself from it. What is required, therefore, to draw Science and Religion together again — for they began the centuries hand in hand — is the disclosure of the naturalness of the supernatural. Then, and not till then, will men see how true it is, that to be loyal to all of Nature, they must be loyal to the part defined as Spiritual. No science contributes to another without receiving a recip- rocal benefit. And even as the contribution of Science to Religion is the vindication of the natur- alness of the Supernatural, so the gift of Religion to Science is the demonstration of the supernatur- alness of the Natural. Thus, as the Supernatural becomes slowly Natural, will also the Natural become slowly Supernatural, until in the imper- * "Meditatione6 Sacrae,' x. PREFACE. 17 sonal authority of Law men everywhere recognize the Autliority of God. To those who ah-eady find themselves fully nourished on the older forms of truth, I do not commend these pages. They will find them superfluous. Nor is there any reason why they should mingle with light which is already clear the distorting rays of a foreign expression. But to those who are feeling their way to a Christian life, hauuted now by a sense of insta- bility in the foundation of their faith, now brought to bay by sj^ecific doubt at one point raising, as all doubt does, the question for the whole, I would hold uj) a light which has often been kind to me. There is a sense of solidity about a Law of Nature which belongs to nothing else in the world. Here, at last, araid all that is ghifting, is one thing sure; one thing outside ourselves, unbiased, unprejudiced, uninfluenced by like or dislike, by doubt or fear; one thing that holds on its way to me eternally, incor- ruptible, and undefiled. This more than any- thing else, makes one eager to see the Reign of Law traced in the Spiritual Sphere. And should this seem to some to ofi'er only a surer, but not a higher Faith; shouid the better ordering of the Spiritual World appear to satisfy the intellect at the sacrifice of revemnce, simplicity, or love; especially should it seem to substitute a Reign of Law and a Lawgiver for a Kingdom of Grace and a Personal God, I will say, with Browning, — "I spoke as I saw. J report, as a man may of God's work — alVs love, yet all's Law. Now I lay down the judgeship He lent me. Each faculty tasked. To pe-cei^e Him, has gained an abyss where a dewdrop was g,'?ke<^." ANALYSIS OF INTRODUCTION. [For the sake of the general reader who may desire to pass at once to the practical applications, the following outline of the Introduc- tion — devoted rather to general principles — is here presented.] PART I. Natural Law in the Spiritual Sphere. 1. The ,e;rowth of the Idea of Law. 2. Its gradual extension throughout every department of Knowledge. 3. Except one. Religion hitherto the Great Exception. Wliy so? 4. Previous attempts to trace analogies between the Nat- ural and Spiritual spheres. These have been limited to analogies between Phenomeny; and are useful mainly as illustrations. Analogies of Law would also have a Scientific value. 5. Wherein that value would consist. (1) The Scientific demand of the age would be met; (3j Greater clearness would be introduced into Religion practically; (8) Theology, instead of resting on Authority, would rest equally on Nature. PART II. The Law op Continuity. A priori argument for Natural Law in the spiritual wofid. 1. The Law Discovered. 2. " Defined. 3. " Applied. The objection answered that the material of the Natural and Spiritual worlds being different they must be under different Laws. The existence of Laws in the Spiritual world other than the Natural Laws(l) improbable, (2) unnecessary, (3) imknown. Qualification. The Spiritual not the projection upward of the Natural; but the Natural the projection downward of the Spiritual. [19] 4 INTRODUCTIOK. "This method turns aside from hypotheses not to be tested by any known logical canon familiar to science, whether the hypothesis claims support from intuition, aspiration or general plausibility. And, again, this method turns aside from ideal standards vhich avow themselves to be lawless, which profess to transcend the fieltl of law. We say, life and conduct shall stand for us wholly on a basis of law, and must rest entirely in that region of science (not physical, but moral and social science), where we are free to use our intelligence in the methods known to us as intelligible logic, methods which the intellect can analyze. When you confront us with hypotheses, however sublime and however affecting, if they cannot be stated in terms of the rest of our knowledge, if they are disparate to that world of sequence and sensation which to us is the ultimate base of all our real knowledge, then we shake our heads and turn aside.''''— I'rederick Harrison. " Ethical science is already forever completed, so far as her genera' outline and main principles are concerned, and has been, as it were, waiting for physical science to come up with her." — Paradoxical Philosophy. PART I. Natural Law is a new word. It is the last and the most magnificent discovery of science. No more telling proof is oj^en to the modern world of the greatness of the idea than the great- ness of the attempts which have alwaj^s been made to justify it. In the earlier centuries, before the birth of science, Phenomena were studied alone. The world then was a chaos, a collection of single, isolated, and independent facts. Deeper thinkers saw, indeed, that relations must subsist between tliese facts, but the Reign of Law was never more to the ancients than a far- off vision. Their philosophies, conspicuously those of the Stoics and Pythagoreans, heroically sought to marshal the discrete materials of the universe into thinkable form, but from these artificial and fantastic systems nothing remains to us now but an ancient testimony to the [21] 23 INTKODUCTIOK. grandeiir of that harmony which they failed to reach. With Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler tlie first regular lines of the universe began to 1 e discerned. When Nature yielded to Newton h -r great secret, Gravitation was felt to be not greater as a fact in itself than as a revelation that Law was fact. And thenceforth the search for in- dividual Phenomena gave way before the larger study of their relations. The jjursuit of Law became the passion of science. What that discovery of Law has done for Nature, it is impossible to estimate. As a mere spectacle the universe to-day discloses a beauty so transcendent that he who disciplines himself by scientific work finds it air overwhelming reward simply to behold it. In these Laws one stands face to face with truth, solid and unchangeable. Each single Law is an instrument of scientific research, simple in its adjustments, universal in its application, infallible in its results. And despite the limitations of its sphere on every side Law is still the largest, richest, and surest source of human knowledge. It is not necessary for the present to more than lightly touch on definitions of Natural Law. The Duke of Argyll* indicates five senses in which the word is used, but we may content ourselves here by taking it in its most simple and obvious significance. The fundamental concejDtion of Law is an ascertained working sequence or con- stant order among the Phenomena of Nature. This impression of Law as order it is important to receive in its simplicity, for the idea is often corrupted by having attached . to it erroneous views of cause and effect. In its true sense Natural Law predicates nothing of causes. The Laws of Nature are simply statements of the orderly condition of things in Nature, what is found in Nature by a sufficient number of com- petent observers. What these Laws are in them- * "Keign of Law," chap. ii. INTRODUCTION. 23 selves is not agreed. That they have any absolute existence even is far from certain. They are relative to man in his many limitations, and represent for him the constant expression of what he may always expect to find in the world around him. But that they have any causal connection with the things around him is not to be conceived. The Natural Laws originate noth- ing, sustain nothing; they are merely responsible for uniformity in sustaining what has been origi- nated and what is being sustained. They are modes of operation, therefore, not operators; processes, not powers. The Law of Gravitation, for instance, speaks to science only of process. It has no light to offer as to itself. Newton did not discover Gravity — that is not discovered yet. He discovered its Law, which is Gravitation, but tells us nothing of its origin, of its nature or of its cause. The Natural Laws then are great lines running not only through the world, but, as we now know, through the universe, reducing it like parallels of latitude to intelligent order. In themselves, be it once more repeated, they may have no more absolute existence than parallels of latitude. But they exist for us. They are drawn for us to under- stand the part by some Hand that drew the whole; so drawn, perhaps, that, understanding the part, we too in time may learn to understand the whole. Now the inquiry we propose to ourselves resolves itself into the simple question, Do these lines stop with what we call the Natural sphere? Is it not possible that they may lead further? Is it prob- able that the Hand which ruled them gave up the work where most of all they were required? Did that Hand divide the world into two, a cosmos and a chaos, the higher being the chaos? With Nature as the symbol of all of harmony and beauty that is known to man, must we still talk of the super-natural, not as a convenient word, but as a different order of world, all unintelligible world, where the Eeign of Mystery supersedes the Reign of Law? M INTKODUCTION. This question, let it be carefully observed, applies to Laws not to Phenomena. That the Phenomena of the Spiritual World are in analogy with the Phenomena of the Natural World requires no restatement. Since Plato enunciated his doc- trine of the Cave or of the twice-divided line; since Christ spake in parables; since Plotinus wrote of the world as an image; since the mysti- cism of Swedenborg; since Bacon and Pascal; since "Sartor Eesartus" and "In Memoriam," it has been all but a commonplace with thinkers that "the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." Milton's question — "What if earth Be brit the shadow of heaven, and things therein Each to other like more than on earth is thought?" is now superfluous. " In our doctrine of repre- sentations and correspondences/' says Sweden- borg, "we shall treat of both these symbolical and typical resemblances, and of the astonishing things that occur, I will not say in the living body only, but throughout Nature, and which correspond so entirely to supreme and sj)iritual things, that one would swear that the physical world was purely symbolical of the spiritual world."* And Carl3de: "All visible things are emblems. AVliat thou seest is not there oh its own account ; strictly speaking is not there at all. Matter exists only spiritually, and to represent some idea and body it forth, "f But the analogies of Law are a totally different thing from the analogies of Phenomena and have a very different value. To say generally, with Pascal, that "La nature est une image de la grace," is merely to be poetical. The function of Hervey's "Meditations in a Flower Garden," or, Flavel's "Husbandry Spiritualized," is mainly homiletical. That such works have an interest is not to be denied. The place of parable in teacli- * "Animal Kingdom." + "Sartor Eesartus," 1858 ed., p. 43. INTIIODUCTION. ^0 ing, and especially after the sanction of the great- est of Teachers, must always be recognized. The very necessities of language indeed demand this method of presenting truth. The temporal is the husk and framework of the eternal, and thoughts can be uttered only through things.* But analogies between Phenomena bear the same relation to analogies of Law that Phenomena themselves bear to Law. The light of Law on truth, as we have seen, is an immense advance up- on the light of Phenomena. The discovery of Law is simply the discovery of Science. And if the analogies of Natural Law can be extended to the Spiritual World, that whole region at once falls within the domain of science and secures a basis as well as an illumination in the constitution and course of Nature. All, therefore, that has been claimed for parable can be predicated a for- tiori of this — with the addition that a proof on the basis of Law would want no criterion possess- ed by the most advanced science. That the validity of analogy generally has been seriously questioned one must frankly own. Doubtless there is much difficulty and even liabil- ity to gross error in attempting to establish anal- ogy in" specific cases. The value of the likeness appears differently to different minds, and in dis- cussing an individual instance questions of rele- vancy will invariably crop up. Of course, in the language of John Stuart Mill, "when the analogy can be proved, the argument founded upon it can- * Even parable, however, has always been considered to have attached to it a measure of evidential as well as of illustrative value, liius: "The parable or'other analogy to spiritual truth appropriated from the world of nature or man, is not merely illustrative, but also in some sort proof. It is not merely that these analogies assist to make the truth intelligible or, if intelligible before, present it more vividly to the mind, which is all that some will allow them. Their power lies deeper than this, in the harmony unconsciously felt by all men, and which all deeper minds have delighted to trace, between the natural and spiritual worlds, so that analogies from the first are felt to be something more than illustrations happily but yet arbitra- rily chosen. They are arguments, and may be alleged as witnesses : the world of nature being throughout a witness for the world of spirit, proceeding from the same hand, growing nut of the same root, and being constituted for that very end.' —(Archbishop Trerch' "Parables," pp. 1.2, 13.) 26 INTRODUCTION. not be resisted."* But so great is the difficulty of proof that many are compelled to attach the most inferior weight to analogy as a method of reasoning. "Analogical evidence is generally more successful in silencing objections than in evincing truth. Though it rarely refutes it fre- quently repels refutation; like those weapons which though they cannot kill the enemy, will ward his blows. ... It must be allowed that analogical evidence is at least but a feeble support, si,nd is hardly ever honored with the name of proof, "f Other authorities on the other hand, such as Sir William Hamilton, admit analogy to a primary place in logic and regard it as the very basis of induction. But, fortunately, we are spared all discussion on this worn subject, for two cogent reasons. For one thing, we do not demand of Nature direct- ly to prove Religion. That was never its function. Its function is to interpret. And this, after all, is possibly the most fruitful proof. The best proof of a thing is that we see it; if we do not see it, perhaps proof will not convince us of it. It is the want of the discerning faculty, the clairvoyant power of seeing the eternal in the temporal, rather than the failure of the reason, that begets the sceptic. But secondly, and more particularly, a significant circumstance has to be taken into account, which, though it will appear more clear- ly afterward, may be stated here at once. The position we have been led to take up is not that the Spiritual Laws are analogous to the Natural Laws, but that they are the same Laws. It is not a question of analogy but of Identity. The Nat- ural Laws are not the shadows or images of the Spiritual in the same sense as autumn is emblema- tical of Decay, or the falling leaf of Death. The Natural Laws, as the Law of Continuity might well warn us, do not stop with the visible and then give place to a new set of Laws bearing a strong similitude to them. The Laws of the in- * Miirs "Logic," vol. ii. p. 96 t Campbell's "Rhetoric," vol. i. p. 114. TNTKODrCTIO^'. 27 visible are tlie same Laws, projections of the nat- iiral not supernatural. Analogous Phenomena are not the fruit of parallel Laws, but of the same Laws — Laws which at one end, as it were, may be dealing with Matter, at the other end with Spirit. As there will be some inconvenience, however, in dispensing witb the word analogy, we shall con- tinue occasionally to employ it. Those who ap- prehend the real "relation will mentally substitute the larger term. Let us now look for a moment at the presen': state of the question. Can it be said that the Laws of the Spiritual AVorld are in any sense con- sidered even to have analogies with the Natural World? Here and there certainly one finds an attempt, and a successful attempt, to exhibit on a rational basis one or two of the great Moral Prin- ciples of the Spiritual World. But the Physical World has not been appealed to. Its magnificent system of Laws remains outside, and its contribu- tion meanwhile is either silently ignored or pur- posely set aside. The Physical, it is said, is too remote from the Spiritual. The Moral World may afEord a basis for religious truth, but even this is often the baldest concession; while the ap- peal to the Physical universe is everywhere dis- missed as, on the face of it, irrelevant and un- fruitful. From the scientific side, again, nothing has been done to court a closer fellowship. Science has taken theology at its own estimate. It is a thing apart. The Spiritual World is not only a different world, but a different kind of world, a world arranged on a totally different principle, under a different governmental scheme. The Eeign of Law has gradually crept into every department of Nature, transforming knowl- edge everywhere into Science. The process goes on, and Nature slowly appears to us as one great unity, until the borders of the Spiritual World are reached. There the Law of Continuity ceases, and the harmony breaks down. And men who have learned their elementary lessons truly from the alphabet of the lower Laws, going on to seek & 28 TNTKODUCTION". higher knowledge, are suddenly confronted with the Great Exception. Even those who have examined most caref'jlly the relations of the Natural and the Spiritual, seem to have committed themselves deliberately to a final separation in matters of Law. It is a surprise to find such a writer as Horace Bushnell, for instance, describing the Si^iritual World as " another system of nature incommunicably separ- ate from ours," and further defining it thus: " God has, in fact, erected another and higher system, that of sjoiritual being and government for which nature exists; a system not under the law of cause and effect, but ruled and marshaled under other kinds of laws."* Few men have shown more in- sight than Bushnell in illustrating Spiritual truth from the Natural World; but he has not only failed to perceive the analogy with regard to Law, but emphatically denies it. In the recent literature of this whole region there nowhere seems any advance upon the po- sition of " Nature and the Supernatural." All are agreed in speaking of Nature and the Supernat- ural. Nature in the Supernatural, so far as Laws are concerned, is still an unknown truth. " The Scientific Basis of Faith " is a suggestive title. The accomplished author announces that the object of his investigation is to show that " the workl of nature and mind, as made known by science, constitute a basis and a preparation for that highest moral and spiritual life of man, which is evoked by the self-revelation of God."f On the whole, Mr. jVIurphy seems to be more philo- sophiciil and more profound in his view of the re- lation of science and religion than any writer of modern times. His conception of religion is broad and lofty, his acquaintance with science adequate. He makes constant, admirable, and often orig- inal use of analogy; and yet, in spite of the prom- ise of this quotation, he has failed to find any anal- ogy in that department of Law where surely, of all * "Nature and the Supernatural," p. 19. + "The Scientific Basis of Faith." By J. J. Murphy, p. 466. IXTRODL'CTIOK. 89 others, it might most reasonably be looked for. In the broad subject even of the analogies of what he defines as ^ evangelical religion " with Nature, Mr. Murphy discovers nothing. Nor can this be traced either to short-sight or over-sight. The subject occurs to him more than once, and he de- liberately dismisses it — dismisses it not merely as unfruitful, but with a distinct denial of its rele- vancy. The memorable paragraph from Origen which forms the text of Butler's "Analogy," he calls " this shallow and false saying."* He sa3-s: " The designation of Butler's scheme of religious philosophy ought then to be the analogy of relig- ion, legal and evangelical, to the constitution of nature. But does this give altogether a true mean- ing? Does this double analegy really exist? If justice is natural law among beings having a moral nature, there is the closest analogy between the constitution of nature and merely legal religion. Legal religion is only the extension of natural jus- tice into a future life. . . . But is this true of evangelical religion? Have the doctrines of Divine grace any similar support in the analogies of nature? I trow not."f And with reference to a specific question, speaking of immortality, he asserts that ''the analogies of mers nature are opposed to the doctrine of immortality. "J With regard to Butler's great work in this de- partment, it is needless at this time of day to point out that his aims did not lie exactly in this direc- tion. He did not seek to indicate analogies he- tioeen religion and the constitution and course of Nature. His theme was, "The Analogy 0/ Re- ligion to the constitution and course of Nature." And although he pointed out direct analogies of Phenomena, such as those between the metamor- phoses of insects and the doctrine of a future state; and although he showed that "the natural and moral constitution and government of the world are so connected as to make up together but one scheme,"! his real intention was not so much to *Op. cit.. D. 333. r lUd., p. 3:% \ Jbid., p. 331. I "Analogy," chap. vii. 3U INTRODUCTIOX. construct arguments as to repel objections. His emphasis accordingly was laid upon the ditlicnlties of the two schemes rather than on their positive lines; and so thoroughly has he made out this point that as is well known, the effect upon many has been, not to lead them to accept the Sjiiritual World on the ground of the Natural, but to make them despair of both. Butler lived at a time when defonce was more necessary than construction, when the materials for construction were scarce and insecure, and when, besides, some of the things to be defended were quite incapable of de- fence, Notwithstanding this, his influence over the whole field since has been unparalleled. After all, then, the Spiritual World, as it ap- pears at this moment, is outside Natural Law. Theology continues to be considered, as it has always been, a thing apart. It remains still a stu- pendous and splendid construction, but on lines altogether its own. Nor is Theology to be blamed for this. Nature has been long in speaking; even yet its voice is low, sometimes inaudible. Science is the true defaulter, for Theology had to w^ait patiently for its development. As the highest of the sciences. Theology in the order of evolution should be the last to fall into rank. It is reserved for it to perfect the final harmony. Still, if it continues longer to remain a thing apart, Avith in- creasing reason will be such protests as this of the " Unseen Universe," when, in speaking of a view of miracles held by an older Theology, it dec^lares: — " If he submits to be guided by such interpret- ers, each intelligent being will forever continue to be baffled in any attempt to explain these phe- nomena, because they are said to have no physical relation to anything that went before or that fol- lowed after; in fine, they are made to form a uni- verse within a universe, a portion cut off by an in- surmountable barrier from the domain of scientific inqiiiry."* This is the secret of the present decadence of * "Unseen Universe," 6th ed., pp. 89, 90. IXTKODLCTION. 31 Religion in the world of Science. For Science can hear nothing of a Great Exception. Constructions on unique lines, "portions cut off by an insur- mountable barrier from the domain of scientific inquiry/' it dare not recognize. Nature has taught it this lesson, and Nature is right. It is the province of Science to vindicate Nature here at any hazard. But in blaming Theology for its intolerance, it has been betrayed into an intoler- ance less excusable. It has pronounced upon it too soon. What if Religion be yet brought within the sphere of Law? Law is the revelation of time. One by one slowly through the centuries the Sciences have crystalized into geometrical form, each form not only perfect in itself, b the perfect its relation to all other forms. Many forms had to be perfected before the form of the Spiritual. The Inorganic has to be worked out before the Organic, the Natural before the Spiritual. The- ology at present has merely an ancient and pro- visional philosophic form. • By-and-by it will be seen whether it be not susceptible of another. For Theology must pass through the necessary stages of progress, like any other science. The method of science-making is now fully established. In almost all cases the natural history and devel- opment are the same. Take, for example, the case of Geology. A century ago there was none. Science went out to look for it, and brought back a Geology which, if Nature were a harmony, had falsehood written almost on its face. It was the Geology of Catasirophism, a Geology so out of line with Nature as revealed by the other sciences, that on a priori grounds a thoughtful mind might have been justified in dismissing it as a final form of any science. And its fallacy was soon and thoroughly exposed. The advent of modified uni- formitarian principles all but banished the wox'd catastrophe from science, and marked the birth of Geology as we know it now. Geology, that is to -say, had fallen at last into the great scheme of Law. Religious doctrines, many of them at least, have been up to this time all but as calastroj)hie 33 INTRODUCTION. as the old Geology. They are not on the lines of Nature as we have learned to decipher her. it any one feel, as Science complains that it feels, that the lie of things in the Spiritual World as arranged by Theology is not in harmony with the world around, is not, in short, scientific, he is en- titled to raise the question whether this he really the final form of those departments of Theology to which his complaint refers. He is justified, moreover, in demanding a new investigation with all modern methods and resources; and Science is bound by its principles not less than by the lessons of its own past, to suspend judgment till the last attempt is made. The success of such an attempt will be looked forward to with hopefulness or fear- fulness just in proportion to one's confidence in Nature — in proportion to one's belief in the di- vinity of man and in the divinity of things. If there is any truth in the unity of Nature, in that supreme principle of Continuity which is growing in splendor with eveiy discovery of science, the conclusion is foregone. If there is any foundation for Theology, if the phenomena of the Spiritual World are real, in the nature of things they ought to come into the sphere of Law. Such is at once the demand of Science upon Religion and the prophecy that it can and shall be fulfilled. The Botany of Linnasus, a purely artificial sys- tem, was a splendid contribution to human knowl- edgCj and did more in its day to enlarge the view of the vegetable kingdom than all that had gone before. But all artificial systems must pass away. None knew better than the great Swedish naturalist himself that his system, being artificial, was but provisional. Nature must be read in its own light. And as the botanical field became more luminous, the system of Jussieu and De Candolle slowly emerged as a native growth, unfolded itself as nat- urally as the petals of one of its own flowers, and forcing itself upon men's intelligence as the very voice of Nature, banished the Linnaan system for- ever. It were unjust to say that the present The- ology is as artificial as the system of Linnajus; in INTRODUCTION. 33 many particulars it wants but a fresh expression to make it in the most modern sense seientific. But if it has a basis in the constitution and course of Nature, that basis has never been adequately shown. It has depended on Authority rather than on Law; and a new basis mast be sought and found if it is to be presented to those with whom Law alone is Authority. It is not of course to be inferred that the scien- tific method will ever abolish the radical distinc- tions of the Spiritual AVorld. True science pro- poses to itself no such general leveling in any de- partment. Within the unity of the whole there must always be room for the characteristic differ- ences of the parts, and those tendencies of thought at the present time which ignore such distinctions, in their zeal for simplicity really create confusion. As has been well said by Mr. Hutton : " Any at- tempt to merge the distinctive characteristic of a higher science in a lower — of chemical changes in mechanical — of physiological in chemical— above all, of mental changes in physiological — is a neglect of the radical assumption of all science, because it is an attempt to deduce representations — or rather misrepresentations — of one kind of phenomena from a conception of another kind which does not contain it, and must have it implicitly and illicitly smuggled in before it can be extracted out of it. Hsnce, instead of increasing our means of repre- senting the universe to ourselves without the de- tailed examination of particulars, such a procedure leads to misconstructions of fact on the basis of an imported theory, and generally ends in forcibly perverting the least-known science to the type of the better known,"* What is wanted is simply a unity of conception, but not such a unity of conception as should be founded on an absolute identity of phenomena. This latter might indeed be a unity, but it would be a very tame one. The perfection of unity is attained where there is infinite variety of phenom * "EiisaYs," vol. . p. 40. 34 INTRODUCTION". ena, infinite complexity of relation, but great sini plicity of Law. Science will be complete when aii Known phenomena can be arranged in one vast. circle in which a few well known Laws shall form the radii — these radii at once separating and unit- ing, separating into particular groups, yet unitiiig all to a common center. To show that the radii for some of the most characteristic phenomena of the Spiritual World are already drawn within that circle by science is the main object of the papers which follow. There will be found an attempt to restate a few of the more elementary facts of the Spiritual Life in terms of Biology. Any argument for Natural Law in the Spiritual World may be best tested in the a jjosteriori form. And although the succeeding pages are not designed in the first instance to prove a principle, they may yet be en- tered here as evidence. The practical test is a se- vere one, but on that account all the more satisfac- tory. And what will be gained if the point be made out? Not a few things. For one, as partly indi- cated already, the scientific demand of the age will be satisfied. That demand is that all that con- cerns life and conduct shall be placed on a scien- tific basis. The only great attempt to meet that at present is Positivism. But what again is a scientific basis? What ex- actly is this demand of the age? "By Science I understand," says Huxley, " all knowledge which rests upon evidence and reasoning of a life charac- ter to that which claims our assent to ordinary scientific propositions; and if any one is able to make good the assertion that his theology rests upon valid evidence and sound reasoning, then it appears to me that such theology must take its place as a part of science." That the assertion has been already made good is claimed by many who deserve to be heard on questions of scientific evidence. But if more is wanted by some minds, more not perhaps of a higher kind but of a differ- ent kind, at least the attempt can be made to INTEODUCTIOJS". 35 gratify them. Mr. Frederick Harrison,* in name of the Positive method of thought, "turns aside from ideal standards which avow themselves to be lawless [theitahcs are Mr. Harrison's], which pro- fess to transcend the field of law. We say, life and conduct shall stand for us wholly on a basis of law, and must rest entirely in that region of science (not physical, but moral and social science) where we are free to use our intelligence, in the methods known to us as inteligible logic, methods which the intellect can analyze. When you con- front us with hypotheses, however sublime and however affecting, if they cannot be stated in terms of the rest of our knowledge, if they are dis- parate that world of sequence and sensation which to us is the ultimate base of all our real knowledge, then we shake our heads and turn aside." This is a most reasonable demand, and we humbly ac- cept the challenge. We think religious truth, or at all events certain of the largest facts of the Spiritual Life, can be stated " in terms of the rest of our knowledge." We do not say, as already hinted, that the pro- posal includes an attempt to prove the existence of the Spiritual World. Does that need proof? And if so, what sort of evidence would be considered in court? The facts of the Spiritual World are as real to thousands as the facts of the Natural World— and more real to hundreds. But were one asked to prove that the Spiritual World can be discerned by the appropriate faculties, one would do it precisely as one would attempt to prove the Natural World to be an object of recognition to the senses — and wdth as much or as little success. In either instance probably the fact would be found in-capable of demonstration, but not more in the one case than in the other. Were one asked to prove the existence of Spiritual Life, one would also do it exactly as one would seek to prove Nat- ural Life. And this perhaps might be attempted with more hope. But this is not on the immedi- * "A Modern Symposium.'"— iVine